From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Mar 24 14:20:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 24 Mar 2001 22:20:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 51395 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2001 22:20:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Mar 2001 22:20:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Mar 2001 22:20:16 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.252.12.84]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010324222015.OXWO285.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 22:20:15 +0000 To: Subject: djuno debate (was: RE: [lojban] Random lojban questions/annoyances.) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 22:19:12 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" Jorge: > la camgusmis cusku di'e [...] > >If y'all are going to insist that djuno makes a distinction between "to be > >aware of the truth or factuality of" and "be convinced or certain of", > >you're going to need to rewrite the definiton, because that is _not_ > >what the current definition says. > > Actually Lojbab argued more or less what you are arguing the > last time this was discussed. Who knows, maybe Lojban usage will > depart from English usage in this regard and settle on your > preferred definition. I vaguely recall Lojbab arguing in effect for djuno = birti. In that debate, which ran along similar lines to the current one, the majority view, then as now, was that djuno = 'know' (and it is a fact not controvertible by adducing sundry half-baked dictionary 'definitions', that in all dialects of English the meaning of "know" is such that if "x knows y" is true then "y" is true). Personally, though, then as now, I would prefer djuno not to mean 'know'. I'd like it to mean 'believe' (specifically, for X djuno Y to mean "X believes X knows Y") and to differ from krici/jinvi in that if X djuno Y then Y is not necessarily true but X believes that any right-minded person should also djuno Y. Typically this would be because there is overwhelming evidence that Y, or because Y is logically entailed by axioms or by premises already believed by everyone, and so on. This would capture the difference between English "I know that P" and "I believe that P": it would be "I know that P" that would be translated by "djuno"; that is, "djuno" is the epistemological state wrt P of someone who would say "I know that P". Needless to say, though, with Usage deciding, the previous paragraph is not intended as a recommendation. --And.